Inside Sources Say Chief Justice Roberts Compromised

Our last bastion of freedom wants We the People to secure our own Blessings of Liberty.

Is the Supreme Court’s protection of our Constitution now about compromise?

According to a stunning report by CBS News, two sources with inside information concerning the ObamaCareTax deliberations confirmed that Chief Justice Roberts was, at first, firmly in agreement with Conservative Justices Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas in their conclusion that the individual mandate is unConstitutional. But, over time and, possibly from external pressure, Roberts deserted his position and switched sides to join the Liberals. The outrage of the other four Conservatives for Roberts’ defection shows in their joint dissenting opinion. After vehemently pleading for Roberts to reverse his “wobbling” availed them nothing, the sources say Kennedy and Scalia wrote the repudiation of the ruling on behalf of the other two. Incensed by the Supreme Court’s failure to protect the Constitution and individual sovereignty, the four Conservatives defiantly refused to join any part of the majority opinion.

Chief Justice Roberts made it clear in his ruling that it was not his job to protect the American people from their voting booth decisions. No. It’s his job to protect and defend the Constitution. As the dissenting opinion states, the Supreme Court disregarded its obligation to preserve the “fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our government”, and by not doing so has placed our liberty “in peril”.

So, in one man’s spirit of public perception and compromise, We the People are on our own.

Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court’s four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama’s health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy – believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law – led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

“He was relentless,” one source said of Kennedy’s efforts. “He was very engaged in this.”

But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, “You’re on your own.”

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsignedjoint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts’ decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

The inner-workings of the Supreme Court are almost impossible to penetrate. The Court’s private conferences, when the justices discuss cases and cast their initial votes, include only the nine members – no law clerks or secretaries are permitted. The justices are notoriously close-lipped, and their law clerks must agree to keep matters completely confidential.

But in this closely-watched case, word of Roberts’ unusual shift has spread widely within the Court, and is known among law clerks, chambers’ aides and secretaries. It also has stirred the ire of the conservative justices, who believed Roberts was standing with them.

After the historic oral arguments in March, the two knowledgeable sources said, Roberts and the four conservatives were poised to strike down at least the individual mandate. There were other issues being argued – severability and the Medicaid extension – but the mandate was the ballgame.

It required individuals to buy insurance or pay a penalty. Congress had never before in the history of the nation ordered Americans to buy a product from a private company as part of its broad powers to regulate commerce. Opponents argued that the law exceeded Congress’ power under the Constitution, and an Atlanta-based federal appeals court agreed.

Continue below the fold.

The Atlanta-based federal appeals court said Congress didn’t have that kind of expansive power, and it struck down the mandate as unconstitutional.

On this point – Congress’ commerce power – Roberts agreed. In the Court’s private conference immediately after the arguments, he was aligned with the four conservatives to strike down the mandate.

Roberts was less clear on whether that also meant the rest of the law must fall, the source said. The other four conservatives believed that the mandate could not be lopped off from the rest of the law and that, since one key part was unconstitutional, the entire law must be struck down.

Because Roberts was the most senior justice in the majority to strike down the mandate, he got to choose which justice would write the Court’s historic decision. He kept it for himself.

Over the next six weeks, as Roberts began to craft the decision striking down the mandate, the external pressure began to grow. Roberts almost certainly was aware of it.

Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the Court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They’ve explained that they don’t want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal.

But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court – and to Roberts’ reputation – if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.

Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.

It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, “wobbly,” the sources said.

It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation. …

The fact that the joint dissent doesn’t mention Roberts’ majority was not a sign of sloppiness, the sources said, but instead was a signal the conservatives no longer wished to engage in debate with him.

The language in the dissent was sweeping, arguing the Court was overreaching in the name of restraint and ignoring key structural protections in the Constitution. There are clear elements of Scalia – and then, there is Justice Kennedy.

“The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty in peril,” the dissent said. “Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead our judgment today has disregarded it.”

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments

Robodog7

“Compromised?” I would call it an act of tyrrany.

Rachelle

Roberts has disgraced himself and the Court.

There is nothing to celebrate about this decision.

He probably doesn’t realize it with the pats on the head from the Left, but now both the Left and the Right view him with contempt.

listingstarboard

This regime is no less brutal than that of a Chavez or Castro. I have no problem beieving that information about Roberts childrens adoption was used as blackmail. I also have no problem believing that the death of Andrew Breitbart was no accident. Look at what the DOJ has already done, does anyone really think that the current regime is above using any means necessary to achieve their goal ? Republicans always underestimate the enemy.

sandy

It makes no sense that a Chief Justice of The Supreme Court would worry about media coverage. The Supremes are an equal branch of Government sworn to uphold the Constitution. I believe that someone made Roberts an offer he couldn’t refuse.

Inquiring minds want to know what it took from the Chicago Politics team to “encourage” Chief Justice Roberts to flip sides, throw out his credibility, his character and his allegiance to the Constitution, and find a way to spin it for the White House.

As they say in DC, there’s usually a “dead girl or live boy” involved in such matters of Democratic power politics and coercion (though if you are a Kennedy or know Barney Frank, neither of those rules apply).

If it’s not the job of the Supreme Court to protect the American people from government overreach and abuse, why the h- are we paying them?

how dumbed down are we bg

++

unsignedjoint dissent

==

therese

I said when ObamaCare was first passed people like Ben Nelson would bury their face in their hands some day and weep over the tyranny they have started. I imagine it may be the same with Justice Roberts. If they have a conscience that is.

mcc

Traitor should resign from the Court and go work at a MacDonalds.

Megyn Kelly interviewed a couple of lawyers following this disastrous decision. One had helped argue the case before SCOTUS.

He said the same thing #6 Pink Tie did. Well, everything but “Traitor” and “go work at a McDonald’s.”

Sorry folks the link doesn’t provide alot of detail ……….This was from Drudge in Aug 4, 2005…………NewYork Times investagates adoption Records of Supreme Court nominee’s Children………Drudge report has uncovered a plot in the NewYork Times’newsroom to look into the adoption of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G.Roberts .The Times has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate adoption records of John Roberts ‘two young children ,Josie age 5 and Jack age 4,a top source reveals………..Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children both children where adopted from Latin America…..

listingstarboard

Roberts decision will result in the deaths of the unborn, the elderly, and all others seen as a “bad risk” for soon to be precious health care resources. The momentum has unfortunately just shifted back to the Progressives.

stuart

I am in my mid sixties, and thus a potential victim of the so called death panels. While I am in good health now I cannot foresee this state of affairs lasting forever. Should I be denied care under this odious system, I may indeed go into that “good night”, but I will not go quietly, nor will I go alone.

Take a good, long look at this everyone. This mentality is of the kind that has infected the Republican Party for years. Compromise, compromise, compromise. Reach across the aisle. Bipartisanship, blah blah blah.

See what compromising your principles gets you?

Mekan

Why do they always say compromise when conservatives fully capitulate?

Granny

Chief “justice” Roberts should resign – or be impeached. Particularly if he sold his vote or allowed himself to be blackmailed.

Since Roberts wrote a tax into law when there wasn’t a tax in Obamacare, he violated his Oath under the Constitution. That’s grounds for Impeachment.

Monkey Wrench

I don’t think Roberts deserted his original opinion. He originally sided with the Republican justices that the mandate is unconstitutional under the commerce clause and he never changed his position.

The only thing that changed was Roberts found a way to uphold the law constitutionally by allowing the mandate under Congress’ taxing authority. During his confirmation hearings he told us he was not an activist judge and would only overrule the will of Congress when absolutely necessary.

So he found a way to uphold the law. Penalties clearly fall under Congress’ taxing authority. The IRS collects all kinds of penalties. For example, if you fail to have enough money deducted from your paycheck, you must pay a penalty in some cases.

That is wrong, wrong, wrong. If the law is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, then it should have been struck down and left that way. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to find a way for a law to remain on the books that they would otherwise rule unconstitutional.

The obvious solution is for the legislative branch to go through the process again and NOT do what they did the last time.

[It’s an elegant theory whose only flaw is that it is repudiated by Chief
Justice Roberts’s own language and logic. His gambit substitutes one
unconstitutional expansion of government power for another and
rearranges the constitutional architecture of the U.S. political system.]

I figured the things that went on up to the ObamaCareTax decision wouldn’t be known until yeeeeeaaaears later. Perhaps in somebody’s memoir, or the publishing of papers. The goings on only took a few days after the decision. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth! Whomever “leaked” this must be quite angry about the whole thing.

Come to think of it… aren’t SCOTUS appointees lifetime appointments so that they shouldn’t wilt under political pressure? If I’m right, maybe Roberts was not getting Lib Love, and decided to do something about it.

Poor Benedict Roberts! It must be tough to work in a town where there are no awards given for Conservative accomplishments.

Callipygian1

I have just coined the word “turnrobe”… this is absolutely despicable behavior.

I have also coined the term Roberts/ObamaCare, as he deserves to forever be associated with this sickly stench of cowardly ineptitude.

Monkey Wrench

#33

Why is that wrong? The mandate can be unconstitutional under the Commerce clause, but be constitutional under Congress’ taxing authority. If that’s the case — and the majority of the justices believe it is — then the mandate is constitutional.

Saying that the mandate cannot be justified by the Commerce clause is just repeating what most of the justices said. They all agree with you. Do you agree that Congress can enact a mandate under Congress’ taxing authority? That’s the question. Forget the Commerce clause.

[You would have thought that Chief Justice John Roberts had shouted
“fire” in a crowded theater. In upholding Obamacare, he set off a headlong
race for the exits by the same lobbying groups — believe it or not — that
had cut deals with the administration to create the legislation. Back then,
the lobbyists were telling each other: If you’re not at the table, you’re on
the menu. Now the bodies are piling up in the doorway as those who
pandered to the president trample over each other in their haste to get
out of the blazing or crumbling structure that is Obamacare. To paraphrase
Oscar Wilde on the death of Little Nell, no one without a heart of stone can
witness this deadly scene without wanting to laugh out loud.]

“While the court said it was legal, that doesn’t make it right. For us to
put time and effort and resources into that doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

He’s right. If Republicans intend to spend their political capital on the
repealing of Obamacare, then it is a bit of a mixed message to begin
the process of implementing that which your party is working against.

Walker has made it clear his disdain for federally mandated healthcare.
Calling it a “tax increase”, Walker claimed that Obamacare will lead to
the rationing of care to control costs.]

[think i’m going to nn him Clint, as in make my day.. :D]

==

how dumbed down are we bg

++

always said the bill would pass & never be repealed..

also prayed i was wrong wrong wrong to no avail..

unfortunately, i’m exactly where i was at when first i ever
heard that Kennedy and Dodd wrote the Obamacare bill..

I would think if the Tea Party actually wanted to display some real spine, it would initiate a call for impeachment of a Chief Justice who is more worried about his appearance at the Washington Post dinner parties, than the Constitution of the United States which he swore to uphold, and for which hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, and Marines have died. The man isn’t worthy of wearing a robe of justice.

“The land of the brave” – well that clearly does not include coward Chief Justice John Roberts.

If he wouldn’t stand up to that freak in the White House and the Greek Mob aka the Democrap Party, then John Roberts is the biggest COWARD ever! Does anyone have an email address for that SOB? I’d like to see us do an email campaign to him where every single one of us calls him a COWARD and a SELLOUT who has no place on the Supreme Court!

The bill, as passed, originated in the United States Senate. If it is, indeed, a tax, as Roberts maintains, that violates Article I, Section 7 of the main body of the Constitution, which states – and I quote:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

An honorable and uncompromised Roberts would have – and should have – found Bambicare unconstitution in all its aspects and sent it back to Congress to re-do. Or – given that we now control the House – scrap it.

He didn’t. Since you apparently agree with him, that doesn’t do much for your credibility, either.

Tim in Cali

If this is true,Benedict Roberts needs to resign ASAP
That type of weakness is what cowards do.
Just so he could sit at the COOL table with the POPULAR kids

#37 — …the mandate cannot be justified by the Commerce clause is just repeating what most of the justices said. They all agree with you…

Okay, I’m waaay over my head discussing this thing, but it puzzled me and I’ve been wondering if what Levin said (on audio w/ Hannity) mattered for any reason…and the statement above made me think of it..

Mark Levin said the Commerce clause is still “hanging” (I think is how he put it) — and then either he said or I read that the dissenting Justices were so mad at Roberts that they wouldn’t agree with any of Roberts’ rulings/opinions (and so there really wasn’t a MAJORITY opinion on the Commerce clause?)…

Wondering if that matters…

I’m most upset because Roberts has put our nation now in real jeopardy. We absolutely MUST get this next election right.

So, Mr. Smarty Pants, (a Washington Post guy – they love Conservatives, don’t they? – was slobberingly adoring you on FOXNewsSunday: “I’ve watched this man for years and while everyone else is playing Checkers, John Roberts is playing Chess”) – you must have loved that…

Seems to me you’ve handed them a real nice gift that should inspire them even more.

You’ve messed with the Devil and given him room to maneuver. I hope it’s not fatal.

May God help us and have mercy on us all.

Jose Can U C

Roberts was in a sham marriage with two adopted kids. He married late in life. It is said that he is gay. Roberts was set to strike down Obama care, when he got a call one night reminding him of what happened to Sandusky. Then Roberts changed his vote and the rest is history.

the real wow

I hope Roberts never has another peaceful night’s rest after what he just did to this country.

fastnfurious

I’m thinking some of Obama’s thugs threatened Roberts to see things their way.
Its the only thing that makes sense. Your first clue was Obama’s thuggish behavior at the State of the Union Address, when Obama arrogantly rebuked The Supreme Court.
Democrats are nothing but organized crime.

All this talk about Roberts upholding “the reputation of the court” pretty much boils down to him wanting to get a good write-up in the New York Times.

Blacque Jacques Shellacque

The mandate can be unconstitutional under the Commerce clause, but be constitutional under Congress’ taxing authority.

Because that’s not how it was sold. “Unclean hands”, and all that.

Really, is it okay for the government to engage in that sort of duplicitous behavior and get away with it just because they coincidentally have some other constitutional power that, if interpreted in some weird way by a Supreme Court justice, might be applicable?

Obama Lies = Freedom Dies.. bg

++

btw, i seriously wouldn’t doubt Mr. Warmth hiss-elf threatening to
either have him, his wife, his, and/or the entire family beheaded.. 🙁

i’d also like to know why Strong decided to take up
residence in the US at this late stage of the game..

Roberts did what he believed and and then asked us to do what we are supposed to do- run our own nation and not depend on five people in robes to fix our stupidity.

We’ve been eating dust from the progressives since the turn of the century, even though they are a minority. We let them teach our kids, inflitrate our media, possess our government and suddenly because ONE guy says “man up it is your job” he’s the bad guy.

He gave us a hundred hanging curves to hit and one of the largest “wink, wink, elbow elbow, say no more” Monty Python moments. He said no to commerce clause, No to mandates, No to punishing states. He built a wall around that law and is making Congress and Obama tell the truth.

And he’s the bad guy.

Had he just kicked it back NOBODY, at least no voter with a bumper sticker mentality of the facts, would understand how bad the law was, how abusive it was going to be, how intrusive. They would have only heard that bad boy Roberts and his cronies denied poor kids and cripples insurance.

NOW they all have to man up. They all have to stand in the well of the House (assuming the Republicans hit the damn hanging curve!) and tell their constituents just how badly they are trying to screw them over for a plan that won’t work anyway.

Further, the States are already opting out and Roberts gave them cover. This is going to offer up a great opportunity for another Supreme Court moment. How can the federal government demand from citizens in one state a set of actions while not doing the same to citizens in another?

Roberts and his court would kick that ball out of the stadium. Remember he likes actually having a “victim” harmed before slapping something down.

I know Roberts blew it bigtime,BUT it will be sweet when Romney wins big. The moon bats will feel 1000x worse than the people upset by the decision. thank God we have a chance to remove it. I’m in no way defending the judge just trying to make lemonade outta lemons. Believe me if I stop and think about the decision I get pissed and upset about my sons and parents future

Obama Lies = Freedom Dies.. bg

++

btw, it truly does boil down to “we the people” losing control over our
own gov.. i mean, we tolerated no term limits, pay raises and perks as
if they didn’t even exist for decades, not to mention allowing the SC to
rule on abortion, and so many other things ie: “virtual child porn” being
legal, (not to mentio0n gay marriage and legalizing drugs, yes they are
OA goal for more votes, so get ready, because they’re coming down the
pike sooner than you may think) .. 🙁

==

American Woman

Ben Stein:
“Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government
that requires every citizen to prove
they are insured…. but not everyone
must prove they are a citizen.”

Obama Lies = Freedom Dies.. bg

++

re; #64 July 2, 2012 at 5:33 pm

okay, also not to mention..

REACHING ACROSS THE FREAKIN’ ISLE
AGAINST THE PEOPLE’S WISHES; GAH!!

it’s the same as negotiating with AQ, Hamas or the Taliban, they DO NOT
NEGOTIATE unless it’s fortuitous in getting THEM closer to THEIR GOALS..

[Roe vs. Wade did not “legalize” abortion as such, but rather was a
punitive ruling that forbade states from restricting abortion during
the first 12 weeks and basically abolishing most restrictions all the
way until actual birth. To put it another way, it forced states to
make abortion on demand a legal entity.

pardon the source, i go for facts v anything else,
and besides, one can easily Google for others..

sort of like the the SC elected Bush, or the
separation of Church and state debacles..

==

Ghost

do you enjoy advanced education?
do you seek understanding beyond mere knowledge?

Politicians compromise, judges are suppose to follow the law. Another dishonorable man that will not honor his oath of office. What we have here is a politician with a lifetime tenure. But then we have a lot of judges that put politics first

Freddy

On Monday, Roberts went out of his way to declare Arizona law unconstitutional on very flimsy grounds.

On Thursday, Roberts went out of his way to find a federal law constitutional.

In both cases, Roberts sided with the 4 anti-constitutional justices whose decisions are never to be questioned.

There are no further questions regarding Roberts loyalty to the constitution.

Obama Lies = Freedom Dies.. bg

++

“He does not want you to have the self-esteem of getting up and
earning, and having that title of American. He’d rather you be his
slave” ~ Allen West

I’ll defend Roberts and the Court over the AZ law. You really need to read it, study it and then compare the AZ law to the Oklahoma law (which was not challenged but did the same thing).

It is all about the “Mission Statement” when writing the law. In Oklahoma, the mission statement was to remove the incentive that draws illegals to their state- employment. The law targeted employers- not the illegals. One source attributed the law to 400,000 illegals leaving that State shortly after the law passed- the goal of the mission statement.

In Az, the mission statement was to embarrass the feds, PROTECT the businesses, and then only afterwards target the immigration problem through police contact. The last part was upheld by the SP and then kicked in the shins by the feds- which is exactly what I thought would happen.

I dealt with ICE and the rest of that crew for years. They are not interested in removing illegals from America. They don’t have the resources- intentionally denied them by Congress and the President from both parties for the last decades.

Also remember, laws are written by lawyers and politicians, who are only as qualified and intelligent as they are, not given any extra smarts by their current position.

They can, and often do, write a poorly designed and dysfunctional law, with an intent in one direction but the actual implementation going in another. When I read the AZ I could see the stretching done by their lawyers. Lawyers in state government are not the cream of the crop- but think they are at times- which leads them to having their lunch taken by better attorneys. (Angela Corey anyone? Marcia Clark?)

The Court will not allow that to stand IF the law directly conflicts with Constitutional principles.

I read the law from the perspective of a Constitutionalist and a veteran police detective and saw all kinds of issues. Some of which were addressed by the SP.

You want illegals out? Treat them like sombrero wearing locus. Remove the food source and they will not even come to your area to feed. No employment, no special programs, no free stuff.

Remember what their mission statement is, to find a better life than their crappy third world existence, and you would do the same if you were them.

Address that and they will go away.

To prove my point, recently due to OUR recession, there are more illegals going south than north. Why? no jobs. Remove their ability to get free stuff from the government (food stamps, welfare, SS, medical) and they would all go home.

AZ should have fallen the rule- keep it simple stupid. But it was about politics and frustration instead.

Cherri

Chief Justice Roberts is a pragmatist and not an extremist like the other “conservative” justices. He understands that to save our health care system everyone must have skin in the game. That mean either everone buys it from the private market (mandate) or we create a universal single payer system funded by taxes. The GOP alternative “let the uninsured die” will only drive up costs for the insured because there is a critical mass required to fund a first world health care delivery system. A healthy populace is a precious national resource and good health is a requirement for equality of opportunity which is not settled by which vagina you popped out of…no matter how many extremists believe it should be.

Well, could it be that the Chief Justice had his two beautiful children to consider.

Sharon

If you are justifying his actions then we have no hope. We have become a nation run by those who are out for themselves. Chief Justice Roberts’ children will grow up in an enslaved America and he will have played a big role in that.